Environmental challenges Scenario 3: are addressed but at a large social cost Cold Green What does 2020 look like? New year 2020 is celebrated in a world with a prospect of sustainability, but only in ecological terms. Natural disasters combined with economically instability finally raised enough political will and public support to address global environmental problems. Strong international environmental regulation is now in place and implemented successfully. Climate change is largely under control, the scarcity of water, land and energy resources is still a reality but manageable. Yet these successes have come at a grave cost. They do not respect the right to development in developing countries, and they do not take into account the disproportionate effects the policy measures have on the poor. Therefore a number of perverse side- effects of the green policies have resulted in a lack of progress for the excluded in society, both in developing countries, the West, and in the emerging economies. As a result, the relative power of the ‘haves’ continues to rise, while the ‘have - nots’ continue to be pushed to the margins. De velopment cooperation is instrumentalised for the sake of the CO2 reduction obsession of governments in the West and the BRIC countries. By 2020, the inequality is becoming unsustainable and African countries, who are instrumental in keeping climate change in check and producing green energy (for the EU), start looking for ways to join forces and challenge the power balance. How did we get there? 2012 to 2015 - The shift towards green policies and practices was triggered by extreme weather conditions and subsequent flooding in Western Europe and China in 2013-2014, re-enforced by a range of other events. The combination of the tangible effects of climate change, a deepening financial and economical crisis, and the first effects of fuel poverty, brought a sense of urgency in the thinking about ecological sustainability. The general public in Western and BRIC countries started worrying about the loss of welfare and wanted drastic answers. In response, populist-nationalist parties co-opted green thinking in the core of their political strategies. Big infrastructure works, green investments in public transport, housing and office buildings, and massive awareness raising campaigns resulted in significantly lower carbon exhaust. At the international level, an unusual coalition of the EU and China lobbied heavily and successfully within the WTO for very strict eco-regulation, resulting in new eco-labels that are binding and monitored through stringent ISO-norms. This new regulation, in combination with technological breakthroughs in manufacturing and transport, and a growing sense of the impact of scarcity of natural resources, triggered a fundamental shift in the incentive system for business internationally. It became not only rewarding, but necessary to invest drastically in eco-friendly production and transport systems. The middle classes in BRIC countries continue to grow, but, except for Brazil, inequality continues to increase. 2015 to 2020 - Because of six different mechanisms, these green strategies became a source of inequality rather than a catalyst for human development: (1) A global Matthew effect : rich and BRIC countries did long term investments in expensive green technology and infrastructure and got their production systems more efficient, self-reliant and effective. The poorest countries and regions did not have the funds, nor the technological skills to do the same. Consequently, the eco-centered regulations became a structural disadvantage for the poorest countries; (2) Bio-eco tandem: the marriage of bio- and eco-thinking resulted in systems that strongly benefit local food and local products. They provided the moral arguments for lower CO2 production and shorter transport chains. This happened at the expense of agriculture imports 1 11.11.11 Research Chair on Development Cooperation – Advanced Draft – DO NOT QUOTE
and consumer goods from developing countries; (3) Geo-engineering: Several countries started experimenting with geo-engineering techniques to stabilize the global climate. They range from Chinese experiments with increasing rainfall artificially, unsafe experiments with carbon capture and storage, and a drastic increase of REDD programmes to curb deforestation and degradation. However, these approaches ended-up benefiting mainly Western and BRIC countries, and REDD turned out to systematically violate the rights of indigenous peoples; (4) Certifying poverty: Sustainability and fair trade certification became very popular, but unfortunately limited to ‘certifying poverty’. The eco -labels and social labels focus dominantly on ecological issues and quality control. Except for the training of staff and the improvement of general labour conditions (e.g. safety at work), nothing structurally changes to wage levels in developing countries; (5) An important part of the development NGOs is tamed by providing excessive funding for ecological service-delivery programmes, at the expense of advocacy and lobby work; (6) Africa as green supplier for Europe: North-Africa is used to produce green energy, which only benefits Europe and some North African countries. Inequality became stronger, but is also increasingly challenged. African governments start to organise themselves to form a counter power against the Environmental disasters and problematic situation. New cartels of solar and hydro economical crisis power producers emerge. The pressure to change the power balance grows... Eco-regulation and populist Development cooperation in 2020 green policies Different actors involved in development still pay lip Perverse side effects for service to a broad interpretation of sustainable social development globally development, but in practice their focus is strongly on the ecological aspect. The obsession with CO2 reduction also impacts heavily on development cooperation. Governmental aid is oriented towards programmes which focus on green farming, producing according to eco-standards, strengthening the state to monitor international eco-standards. These programmes are increasingly implemented through public-private partnerships, and market-driven forms of cooperation between private business and charity. This is fuelled by the strong focus on results-based aid and the focus on quick wins (e.g. vaccinations...). A renewed investment in family planning programmes in Africa to decrease birth rates can also be witnessed. A significant part of the aid funds are invested in awareness raising campaigns in Western and BRIC countries themselves, focusing on the importance of a low carbon life, lower consumption patterns, buying and producing locally. Other funds are oriented towards developing countries that are either important sources of CO2 emissions, or that suffer significantly under climate change. Also the private sector orients itself to the new reality, however fair trade certification is often reduced to the monitoring of eco-standards, with rather weak financial and social working conditions. Many CSO s are also incorporated in this system by excessive funding for green development programmes. Funding to trade unions, watchdog and policy-advocacy CSOs is reduced for two main reasons: (1) populist governments want to avoid destabilising the fragile economic and fiscal situation worldwide, and (2) with the growth of South-South cooperation and growing importance of financial flows outside the aid system, developing countries became more assertive and allergic towards aid with political conditionalities (governance, human rights, democracy). However, a number of CSO groups continues to push the social 2 11.11.11 Research Chair on Development Cooperation – Advanced Draft – DO NOT QUOTE
Recommend
More recommend
